Why is it a bad thing to have three lefties in the rotation? Can anyone give me a good reason why that is a detriment? I think it's a bunch of bull**** invented by idiots in the Chicago media.

Danks, Sale and Quintana pitched consecutively over the weekend against the AL East-leading Toronto Blue Jays. All three pitchers won. Was it an advantage for Toronto to face three lefties in a row? Doesn't seem like it.

I wouldn't trade Danks. The Sox only have three legitimate starting pitchers in their organization. I understand he isn't part of the future, but in the meantime somebody needs to pitch. It might as well be Danks. And given his salary, I don't think he would fetch the Sox a bounty of elite prospects anyway. Trading him would be nothing more than a salary dump, IMO.

I meant that if Danks finishes out his contract with the Sox through '16 then the Sox with have 4 lefties assuming Rodon comes up. And yes, 4 is too many, 3 is perfectly fine.

I think its pointless to have Danks, especially this year because we are playing for nothing. His value might not get any higher than it is now, so might as well trade him to upgrade other places of need for the near future. He will be a 4 or 5 next year at best, so why worry about having a back end starter for next year?

I meant that if Danks finishes out his contract with the Sox through '16 then the Sox with have 4 lefties assuming Rodon comes up. And yes, 4 is too many, 3 is perfectly fine.

I think its pointless to have Danks, especially this year because we are playing for nothing. His value might not get any higher than it is now, so might as well trade him to upgrade other places of need for the near future. He will be a 4 or 5 next year at best, so why worry about having a back end starter for next year?

Based on what? Good pitching is good pitching, regardless of what hand they use.

I meant that if Danks finishes out his contract with the Sox through '16 then the Sox with have 4 lefties assuming Rodon comes up. And yes, 4 is too many, 3 is perfectly fine.

I think its pointless to have Danks, especially this year because we are playing for nothing. His value might not get any higher than it is now, so might as well trade him to upgrade other places of need for the near future. He will be a 4 or 5 next year at best, so why worry about having a back end starter for next year?

Why? I hear and read comments like that all the time, but nobody has ever presented any proof that it's a detriment.

I'm aware that we're playing for nothing this year and probably next year, too. Nevertheless, there are 162 major league games to play this season and next season, too. Somebody's gotta pitch all those innings. Right now, the Sox are woefully short on arms.

The only way you trade Danks is if you're getting multiple pitchers in return, including at least one MLB-ready arm. Given his salary level and declining skills, I sincerely doubt Danks will fetch that in a trade. I think he has more value on the roster than he does in a trade, in fact.

I always get a kick out of this notion that teams should "sell high" on a guy. If we as fans think Danks might not sustain the level he's pitching at right now, don't you suppose rival scouts and GMs might be thinking the same thing? They are looking at the same pitcher we're watching. Who do we think we're fooling anyway?

Why? I hear and read comments like that all the time, but nobody has ever presented any proof that it's a detriment.

I'm aware that we're playing for nothing this year and probably next year, too. Nevertheless, there are 162 major league games to play this season and next season, too. Somebody's gotta pitch all those innings. Right now, the Sox are woefully short on arms.

The only way you trade Danks is if you're getting multiple pitchers in return, including at least one MLB-ready arm. Given his salary level and declining skills, I sincerely doubt Danks will fetch that in a trade. I think he has more value on the roster than he does in a trade, in fact.

I always get a kick out of this notion that teams should "sell high" on a guy. If we as fans think Danks might not sustain the level he's pitching at right now, don't you suppose rival scouts and GMs might be thinking the same thing? They are looking at the same pitcher we're watching. Who do we think we're fooling anyway?

The Yankees are the only team likely to make a move for Danks, and their offer is likely to be something in the range of "We'll pay him".

I agree with JB; trading Danks would be a salary dump. We won't get a top-notch MLB-ready prospect (like Danks was when we acquired him for McCarthy) by trading Danks.

Salary dumps are only useful if the money goes to something else - preferably something better, but at least something equally good.

The Sox have proven that they approach payroll as a year-to-year proposition. Saving money in 2014 and 2015 does not "bank it" to spend in later years.

So, can the Sox improve their rotation in 2015 (and beyond) by dumping his salary this year? I doubt it.

__________________The universe is the practical joke of the General at the expense of the Particular, quoth Frater Perdurabo, and laughed. The disciples nearest him wept, seeing the Universal Sorrow. Others laughed, seeing the Universal Joke. Others wept. Others laughed. Others wept because they couldn't see the Joke, and others laughed lest they should be thought not to see the Joke. But though FRATER laughed openly, he wept secretly; and really he neither laughed nor wept. Nor did he mean what he said.

We would all have pulled Danks earlier. We also would have let Sierra hit. That's why we have WSI.

Exactly.

__________________"I have the ultimate respect for White Sox fans. They were as miserable as the Cubs and Red Sox fans ever were but always had the good decency to keep it to themselves. And when they finally won the World Series, they celebrated without annoying every other fan in the country." Jim Caple, ESPN (January 12, 2011)

"We have now sunk to a depth at which the restatement of the (bleeding) obvious is the first duty of intelligent men." — George Orwell

Danks shouldn't have seen the mound in the 8th inning at all last night; the decision to pinch hit L Garcia had much more tangible justification than did the decision to let him bat the night before in the ninth, down 2, bases empty, 2 outs with Abreu on deck.
And keeping Carroll out there the night before was really inexplicable. Despite the problems this pen has in the 9th, he's got 5 guys out there with ERAs below 3.5, 4 of whom have solid WHIPs.
Ventura continues to be an anchor.

Why is it a bad thing to have three lefties in the rotation? Can anyone give me a good reason why that is a detriment? I think it's a bunch of bull**** invented by idiots in the Chicago media.

Danks, Sale and Quintana pitched consecutively over the weekend against the AL East-leading Toronto Blue Jays. All three pitchers won. Was it an advantage for Toronto to face three lefties in a row? Doesn't seem like it.

I wouldn't trade Danks. The Sox only have three legitimate starting pitchers in their organization. I understand he isn't part of the future, but in the meantime somebody needs to pitch. It might as well be Danks. And given his salary, I don't think he would fetch the Sox a bounty of elite prospects anyway. Trading him would be nothing more than a salary dump, IMO.

There may well be idiots in the Chicago media, and sports media tends to be a refuge for idiots anyway, but the idea that it's a bad thing to have three lefties in the starting rotation goes way back to the point of traditon. It goes back to the days when the best teams had four-man rotations sent out right-left-right-left.

Part of it is the tendency for fans and analysts to put too much emphasis on statistical trends and splits. Not all lefties are Chris Sale or even Mark Buehrle. There are lefties who have occasional success in no small part because they throw left handed, upsetting hitters' pitch recognition and timing. You seldom hear of a crafty righty. Look at splits, and you make assumptions that teams do better against every lefty starter the game after facing another lefty starter, becoming acclimated to lefties, which is the case on a lot of teams, and you might make the assumpton that you are a disadvantage if you have three or more lefties in a starting rotation. This ignores the question of who the lefties are, but many managers don't want to start lefties back to back against the same team to get the most out of their pitchers.

It's mostly about percentages, and analyzing baseball by percentages is a simplistic thing even if higher math is involved. Managers will relieve lefties in favor of righties to face Jose Abreu, even though Abreu hits righties better than lefties, because they are playing global percentages.

This ignores the question of who the lefties are, but many managers don't want to start lefties back to back against the same team to get the most out of their pitchers.

It's mostly about percentages, and analyzing baseball by percentages is a simplistic thing even if higher math is involved. Managers will relieve lefties in favor of righties to face Jose Abreu, even though Abreu hits righties better than lefties, because they are playing global percentages.

Most managers are afraid to go against the "book" to the point of extreme examples like the one above. If a manager had a lefty to face Abreu who then took him deep, that manager would be excoriated. Some would call for his immediate firing. Even if the lefty had previous success against Abreu. Guys like Casey Stengel and Leo Durocher wouldn't get much of a chance in today's game.

Most managers are afraid to go against the "book" to the point of extreme examples like the one above. If a manager had a lefty to face Abreu who then took him deep, that manager would be excoriated. Some would call for his immediate firing. Even if the lefty had previous success against Abreu. Guys like Casey Stengel and Leo Durocher wouldn't get much of a chance in today's game.

Some would accuse Ventura of overvaluing the book by batting Abreu third against lefties and fourth against righties, but Abreu isn't the only consideration. Gillaspie is clearly better against righties than lefites. So is Dunn. Without looking it up, I am guessing Gordon Beckham, Dayan Viciedo and Paul Konerko may be the only Sox hitters who are clearly better against lefties than righties.

Against lefties, you don't have Gillaspie getting on base in front of Abreu, although Gillaspie is hitting better against lefties this year. Beckham in the two-hole getting on base agaisnt lefties more than he is in the two-hole against righties. And Abreu hitting against lefties is preferable to a lot of guys hitting against lefties. With Abreu, I expect he will get better against lefties as he adjusts to the league.

Most managers are afraid to go against the "book" to the point of extreme examples like the one above. If a manager had a lefty to face Abreu who then took him deep, that manager would be excoriated. Some would call for his immediate firing. Even if the lefty had previous success against Abreu. Guys like Casey Stengel and Leo Durocher wouldn't get much of a chance in today's game.

You're right. There is a lot of CYA managing that goes on. You see effective right-handed pitchers removed from games at times simply because a left-handed batter has stepped to the plate. Robin Ventura has been guilty of that several times this year, most recently in Baltimore, when he removed Putnam in favor of Downs just because Chris Davis was at the plate.

Downs failed to retire Davis, and was designated for assignment after the Sox blew the lead and lost the game. But, hey, the manager brought in the lefty to face a lefty hitter, and that's what you're supposed to do these days.

Most managers are afraid to go against the "book" to the point of extreme examples like the one above. If a manager had a lefty to face Abreu who then took him deep, that manager would be excoriated. Some would call for his immediate firing. Even if the lefty had previous success against Abreu. Guys like Casey Stengel and Leo Durocher wouldn't get much of a chance in today's game.

"Afraid" is probably the right word to use in this case. Neither Stengal nor Durocher would have cared one whit what anybody thought of any move they made... quite rightly. Anybody with a computer and stats thinks they are a manager today.

Most managers are afraid to go against the "book" to the point of extreme examples like the one above. If a manager had a lefty to face Abreu who then took him deep, that manager would be excoriated. Some would call for his immediate firing. Even if the lefty had previous success against Abreu. Guys like Casey Stengel and Leo Durocher wouldn't get much of a chance in today's game.

Quote:

Originally Posted by kufram

"Afraid" is probably the right word to use in this case. Neither Stengal nor Durocher would have cared one whit what anybody thought of any move they made... quite rightly. Anybody with a computer and stats thinks they are a manager today.

I'll agree with you both about Durocher but, Stengel was highly over rated.